Chapter 11 announced - Part 12 - District Court

[Eagle1970]

The only state-level issue I have read about is the failure of a legislative carve-out of the Ohio SoL for the purposes of this settlement.  Widely expected to become law, it was opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, among others, apparently as "bad for business".   I continue to find it appalling that nearly half of the states and territories have amended statutes, while others won't even look at a bill to do so.  Those abused in states that have not are subject to receiving pennies on the dollar that those in California, New York and so many others are set to receive.  And many more states have amended their criminal SoL so that perps can be imprisoned, but their victims cannot seek justice in civil court.  Yes, I understand each state makes laws, and not the federal government.  But, tell me this is equitable.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

There was a strong use of these scouting threads by lawyers and those associated with keeping the case moving.  Now that the case is mostly decided ... except appeals ... except money distribution ... except 1000 other issues, the daily use of these threads does not serve the case.

I do not think that is exactly true. I think the fact that there has not been anything to discuss is what has kept survivors from posting.

[fred8033]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I do not think that is exactly true. I think the fact that there has not been anything to discuss is what has kept survivors from posting.

Perhaps your saying "exactly true" is useful.  I suspect it is a mix.  

[yknot]

2 hours ago, fred8033 said:

Perhaps your saying "exactly true" is useful.  I suspect it is a mix.  

It seemed most of the commenters were survivors. I'm glad most of them stopped commenting -- everything seemed to be very triggering to the point that I worried about state of mind for some of them. It's good if, with the sense that the bulk of this has been decided, good or bad, for them, they have moved on. It would be unhealthy to remain in that state of agitation throughout the appeal process. Although I imagine if anything significant crops up, they'll be back. 

[ThenNow]

5 hours ago, yknot said:

Although I imagine if anything significant crops up, they'll be back. 

Ahem. We are here, kind sir. Silence is not absence, avoidance or disinterest. (NAM and membership numbers and charging into the fall of 2023 just aren’t conversations we care to engage.)

Edited January 12, 2023 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

For those closer to the case, any details regarding the hearing Feb 21?  Looks like the Coalition is asking for $21M and Pfau/Zalkin is looking for $3.5M.  Is this coming directly from BSA (who has around $80M of cash) or out of the settlement?  Will coalition law firms reduce their 33 - 40% commission or are they simply double dipping?

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Is this coming directly from BSA (who has around $80M of cash) or out of the settlement?  Will coalition law firms reduce their 33 - 40% commission or are they simply double dipping?

I have no expertise, but the sections of the code I read (back when) indicate the request for reimbursement of expenses when the party claims and makes the case for a "substantial contribution to the settlement" are sought from the debtor's estate. That makes sense to me because that's the kitty from which the TCC and other professionals have been and are paid. The next part is not so easy for my wee brain to grasp.

These requests are for fees paid to secondary firms that represented their clients (Coalition, Pfau...) in the effort to "make a deal" with the other constituents (BSA, insurers, etc.) The second link below will magically transport you to the doc setting out the Coalition's argument for payment of Brown-Rudnick's fees. Remember, the actual lawyers for the CSA claimants are tort lawyers in a bankruptcy court. Many (most?) are out of their league from a practice area and expertise standpoint so they hired bankruptcy experts to negotiate and assist in mediation and the case overall. The request is based on the notion that they spent money for more attorneys to represent them (also attorneys) to help serve those attorneys' clients and other claimants (creditors) in pursuit of money for their clients, 33%-40% of which goes to them. "Them"  being the claimants' attorneys not the claimants' attorneys' attorneys. That's an intentionally lovely run on sentence attempting illustrate the goofy, circular, self-serving sleight of hand.

[Deep breath] So, all that leads one to the conclusion that, because these are fees "above and beyond" the primary client representation that produced a substantial contribution to the settlement, the claimants' attorneys get to keep their hunk of the client money while covering their debt to the bankruptcy firms. This is per the code, as I read it. It all makes perfect sense, right? Or not. After all this time, I am still totally open to being publicly shamed and disabused of these conclusions.

Short explanation. https://www.pbwt.com/bankruptcy-update-blog/substantial-contribution-a-new-decision-from-the-third-circuit/  

Coalition Begs for (More) Money. https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/67d103d9-e390-413b-b0ed-1dbd7320403b_10808.pdf

PS - Please forgive typos. I've been up working on stuff since 2:10AM CT. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by ThenNow

[johnsch322]

28 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

These requests are for fees paid to secondary firms that represented their clients (Coalition, Pfau...) in the effort to "make a deal" with the other constituents (BSA, insurers, etc.)

I sure hope they do not get paid for anything other than client representation.  Nothing extra!!

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

I sure hope they do not get paid for anything other than client representation.  Nothing extra!!

I reckon that's misplaced hope, my friend. The TCC filed papers more or less in support while noting their annoyance that the Coalition made it sound like they did it all and won the day. Clearly that was not the case.

[SiouxRanger]

 

On 1/11/2023 at 8:59 PM, ThenNow said:

Ahem. We are here, kind sir. Silence is not absence, avoidance or disinterest. (NAM and membership numbers and charging into the fall of 2023 just aren’t conversations we care to engage.)

And supporters of Survivors are always checking. Truly said, "Silence is not absence."  One eye is always open…

No matter how long the trail, or how high the passes, or how heavy the pack, we will be there.

[MYCVAStory]

On 1/13/2023 at 3:33 PM, ThenNow said:

The TCC filed papers more or less in support while noting their annoyance that the Coalition made it sound like they did it all and won the day. Clearly that was not the case.

While the TCC didn't object, it didn't support reimbursement either, and made clear that the Coalition and Pfau/Zalkin's reimbursement requests were not their fight pro or con.   From the docket: https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/4e0ca3c3-b1e5-4bc3-b4f4-0407a4d599ca_10861.pdf

"However, in an attempt to emphasize their individual roles in this case to support the payment of their substantial contribution claims, the Coalition and, to a lesser extent, Pfau/Zalkin, have minimized (and at times have been outright dismissive of) the integral role that the TCC played in this case, both individually and as part of the joint efforts of the three survivor representative groups – each of which played varying, additive and vital roles in the ultimate successful outcome of this case."

Given the feelings shown by Judge Silverstein regarding the Coalition it was probably best not to get into that mud fight unless their was a desire to get muddy.  Regardless, put 2/21  on your calendar for that hearing.  This should be via Zoom and could not only have some fireworks but judges often rule from the bench at conclusion.  It should be interesting to see if the Judge essentially asks "So, the attorneys who formed the Coalition are taking 40% from their clients.  Why should the BSA pay for the Coalition's professionals fees (Brown-Rudnick) instead of it coming out of the client contingencies the Coalition attorneys stand to collect?"  It will be very interesting to see from the outset if the Judge just wants to get this over with or make it ugly. 

Small other reminder, District Court hearing 2/9-10 is NOT on Zoom.  In-person viewing only. Come to Wilmington...beautiful in January!  (Sarcasm mode off) 

[MYCVAStory]

On 1/16/2023 at 3:45 AM, SiouxRanger said:

No matter how long the trail, or how high the passes, or how heavy the pack, we will be there.

So true.  I've been struck at the number of times parties have suggested that Survivors are growing impatient when that isn't the case.  Frustrated?  Absolutely.  But if you take a Survivor who has waited decades for some sort of resolution, and assume that all of a sudden their patience is going to evaporate, you're going to make a big mistake.  Survivors want this over but realize that for many this might be their best shot.  Don't ignore their abuse OR the resolve that's been forged over the decades.

[Eagle1970]

The longer this goes on, the more I wonder how many survivors will be gone by the time there is resolution. 

Average life expectancy is in the mid-70's and many of us were abused 50-60 years ago.  Not getting any younger, I'm at the unfortunate point of having to document my "memories" so my wife can tell my story, should my ticket run out.  And that goes for my fellow scouts (as potential witnesses) who were present at camp but not abused.  In my case, several were specifically aware of my abuser's history before I was.  

Does anyone have input into how to best document for this possibility?

 

 

[InquisitiveScouter]

6 hours ago, Eagle1970 said:

The longer this goes on, the more I wonder how many survivors will be gone by the time there is resolution. 

Average life expectancy is in the mid-70's and many of us were abused 50-60 years ago.  Not getting any younger, I'm at the unfortunate point of having to document my "memories" so my wife can tell my story, should my ticket run out.  And that goes for my fellow scouts (as potential witnesses) who were present at camp but not abused.  In my case, several were specifically aware of my abuser's history before I was.  

Does anyone have input into how to best document for this possibility?

 

 

Could you enter this in a will?  Disposition of a settlement in your favor, that is?

 

[Eagle1970]

24 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

Could you enter this in a will?  Disposition of a settlement in your favor, that is?

 

This is sort of along the lines of my question.  And how would a surviving member present further claim info.